Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief asking the Virginia Supreme Court to expand the universe of people to whom employers owe a duty of care under tort law. This issue was put before the court as a certified question of whether an employer owes a duty of care to the family member of an employee who alleges exposure to asbestos from the work clothes of the employee at a shipyard, where such exposure takes place off of the employer’s premises and the employer has no relationship with the family member. This case is important because imposition of a duty on employers to prevent off-site exposures to asbestos (and presumably other toxic substances) could lead to potentially boundless and indefinite liability. The NAM’s brief explained that such a duty would substantially burden the still-solvent but increasingly remote defendants in the asbestos litigation and that a duty finding here also could open the door to lawsuits against employers over any number of hazards that workers carry off-site. In a 4-3 decision, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the shipyard does owe a duty of care to prevent employees from carrying asbestos fibers home.